Razorfag: Contrarian Megafaggot

Whine and Bitch about people long after they become interesting to talk about
User avatar
Pope Corky III
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:11 pm

Re: Razorfist (now known as Racistfist probably)

Post by Pope Corky III » Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:24 am

rabidtictac wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:01 pm
Secular Talk built his channel on talking to people about polidicks. I wouldn't be surprised if he'd win a debate over mascarafist.

Regardless, every time I hear "youtube debate" I have to be the lone asshole to point out that winning an internet youtube "debate" holds as much value as winning a pissing contest. It means zero to the actual argument. All it says is the person who lost was shit at debating their argument. And that's true no matter which side is youtube debating the other side and "winning." Debates test debate skill, not the truth of the arguments.
Exactly how is a contest of arguments supposed to go then?
da PAC Nigguh wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:14 pm
He may have caught it at the same Bilderberg-Illuminati meeting as Prince Albert in a Can. I guess lizardmen aren't immune.

User avatar
rabidtictac
Posts: 20320
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:25 pm

Re: Razorfist (now known as Racistfist probably)

Post by rabidtictac » Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:30 am

Pope Corky III wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:24 am
rabidtictac wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:01 pm
Secular Talk built his channel on talking to people about polidicks. I wouldn't be surprised if he'd win a debate over mascarafist.

Regardless, every time I hear "youtube debate" I have to be the lone asshole to point out that winning an internet youtube "debate" holds as much value as winning a pissing contest. It means zero to the actual argument. All it says is the person who lost was shit at debating their argument. And that's true no matter which side is youtube debating the other side and "winning." Debates test debate skill, not the truth of the arguments.
Exactly how is a contest of arguments supposed to go then?
I suppose if both parties were 100% honest to the point of not even deceiving themselves, we could hold a debate between two parties and then ask them both at the end two questions:

-who do they think won the debate?
-whose position do they think is more likely to be closer to the truth?

But people aren't honest. What you're asking is essentially how to know what's the truth and what's not. Good fucking luck with that one.

I'm just pointing out that beating someone in a debate doesn't mean you aren't still talking shit. It says nothing either way about truth.
RAPEMAN wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:42 pm
>liberal: ban x
>trump: yeah ban x
>liberal: no bro x is awesome

User avatar
Stranger
Posts: 747
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:37 am

Re: Razorfist (now known as Racistfist probably)

Post by Stranger » Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:38 am

rabidtictac wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:30 am
I suppose if both parties were 100% honest to the point of not even deceiving themselves
This isn't necessary. Winning a debate doesn't mean anything but that's perfectly fine. The point of debate is to exchange ideas.

The end-game should be to research, further, the points brought up within said debate afterward. The problem is neither Secular Talk or Razorfist will do this. Their audiences even less so.

All that people need to realize is that walking out of a debate with a victory doesn't mean you aren't wrong and everything's fine. That's not what happens, though. Milo Yo-yo-populace is a great example of this-- he'll say things that are either shady or flat untrue but he'll say them to people who have no idea how to argue back and then he'll deceive himself into thinking he's actually correct rather than just quick witted enough to stump a bunch of retarded college kids.
"I currently have 274 pounds of lean mass. My nurse explained that since she'd just seen me walk a quarter mile that I basically was ripped underneath all of this fat." - Arnold Boogienigger

User avatar
VoiceOfReasonPast
Supreme Shitposter
Posts: 47635
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:33 pm

Re: Razorfist (now known as Racistfist probably)

Post by VoiceOfReasonPast » Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:53 am

They just like the feeling of "winning", hollow as it may be.
Kugelfisch wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 3:43 am
That's nice and all but the slippery slope is anything but a fallacy in that case.
Guest wrote:
Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:16 am
So Fury Road and Blade Runner 3 are the only movies with the DHI seal of approval.
Not by me at least. Fury Road is a shit story and a shit sequel. The car stuff is nice and it has a neat meme attached to it but I wouldn't watch it again and hadn't if it wasn't running in the background at a friend's place. The first Mad Max is the only good movie in the entire series.
Oh and they have a Glock that holds about thirty rounds in a standard-sized magazine. I hate it when movies do that. I started counting the shots right away because I knew it would be a movie like that.
You should know by know that reloading in Hollywood movies only happens out of plot convenience or to look cool.
Autism attracts more autism. Sooner or later, an internet nobody will attract the exact kind of fans - and detractors - he deserves.
-Yours Truly

4 wikia: static -> vignette

wildmage
Posts: 739
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:22 am

Re: Razorfist (now known as Racistfist probably)

Post by wildmage » Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:23 am

Kugelfisch wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 3:43 am
That's nice and all but the slippery slope is anything but a fallacy in that case.
Guest wrote:
Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:16 am
So Fury Road and Blade Runner 3 are the only movies with the DHI seal of approval.
Not by me at least. Fury Road is a shit story and a shit sequel. The car stuff is nice and it has a neat meme attached to it but I wouldn't watch it again and hadn't if it wasn't running in the background at a friend's place. The first Mad Max is the only good movie in the entire series.
Oh and they have a Glock that holds about thirty rounds in a standard-sized magazine. I hate it when movies do that. I started counting the shots right away because I knew it would be a movie like that.

Blade Runner doesn't interest me at all so I won't see the new one. The original was boring enough.
Don't forget that RLM already posted theire review of 2049 and they liked it as a stand alone sci-fi movie, so of course Razorfag will have to suck the original's dick and claim that this one raped his childhood.

User avatar
Pope Corky III
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:11 pm

Re: Razorfist (now known as Racistfist probably)

Post by Pope Corky III » Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:54 pm

rabidtictac wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:30 am
Pope Corky III wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:24 am
rabidtictac wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:01 pm
Secular Talk built his channel on talking to people about polidicks. I wouldn't be surprised if he'd win a debate over mascarafist.

Regardless, every time I hear "youtube debate" I have to be the lone asshole to point out that winning an internet youtube "debate" holds as much value as winning a pissing contest. It means zero to the actual argument. All it says is the person who lost was shit at debating their argument. And that's true no matter which side is youtube debating the other side and "winning." Debates test debate skill, not the truth of the arguments.
Exactly how is a contest of arguments supposed to go then?
I suppose if both parties were 100% honest to the point of not even deceiving themselves, we could hold a debate between two parties and then ask them both at the end two questions:

-who do they think won the debate?
-whose position do they think is more likely to be closer to the truth?

But people aren't honest. What you're asking is essentially how to know what's the truth and what's not. Good fucking luck with that one.

I'm just pointing out that beating someone in a debate doesn't mean you aren't still talking shit. It says nothing either way about truth.
That's the thing though, never mind the participants, the audience. If the audience thinks you won they're going to walk out thinking they just heard the truth and that their enemy just got humiliated and everything they espoused is wrong.
da PAC Nigguh wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:14 pm
He may have caught it at the same Bilderberg-Illuminati meeting as Prince Albert in a Can. I guess lizardmen aren't immune.

OldManBones
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:35 am

Re: Razorfist (now known as Racistfist probably)

Post by OldManBones » Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:26 pm

The perfect example of this is the Destiny vs Jontron debate. Destiny 'won' the debate, but it doesn't prove him right on the issues because he was debating against someone who can barely form a coherent argument.

User avatar
Le Redditeur
Supreme Shitposter
Posts: 11431
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:58 pm

Re: Razorfist (now known as Racistfist probably)

Post by Le Redditeur » Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:15 pm

I prefer debates in text form, back and forth, preferably when the debaters do a paragraph-by paragraph breakdown of the opposite arguments. Not only it's usually easy to follow, it takes out the debaters' personal quirks out of the presentation, and usually ends up in better quality arguments being used because they can consult sources and have more time to formulate their points.

User avatar
rabidtictac
Posts: 20320
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:25 pm

Re: Razorfist (now known as Racistfist probably)

Post by rabidtictac » Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:43 pm

Pope Corky III wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:54 pm
rabidtictac wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:30 am
Pope Corky III wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:24 am


Exactly how is a contest of arguments supposed to go then?
I suppose if both parties were 100% honest to the point of not even deceiving themselves, we could hold a debate between two parties and then ask them both at the end two questions:

-who do they think won the debate?
-whose position do they think is more likely to be closer to the truth?

But people aren't honest. What you're asking is essentially how to know what's the truth and what's not. Good fucking luck with that one.

I'm just pointing out that beating someone in a debate doesn't mean you aren't still talking shit. It says nothing either way about truth.
That's the thing though, never mind the participants, the audience. If the audience thinks you won they're going to walk out thinking they just heard the truth and that their enemy just got humiliated and everything they espoused is wrong.
I suppose it depends on the audience, as Stranger said. And the format as well. And how well the debate is set up. There are a myriad of factors relating to the setting up and administration of the debate which can make it more or less honest, and more or less a waste of time. The kind of "debates" people like Miscarriage of Acchild get up to on youtube aren't shining examples of how to run one.

I think a better way to exchange ideas is for two people to just talk. Debate implies some party pwns the other, and you can't openly exchange ideas if you're only obsessed with racking up pwnage points in front of your paymetons audience while arguing against someone you claim to despise.
RAPEMAN wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:42 pm
>liberal: ban x
>trump: yeah ban x
>liberal: no bro x is awesome

User avatar
Stranger
Posts: 747
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:37 am

Re: Razorfist (now known as Racistfist probably)

Post by Stranger » Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:21 pm

Honestly I think these debates should be held in private chats with neutral parties who have never heard of these people sitting in on the debate so there's no pressure to pander to their audiences.
"I currently have 274 pounds of lean mass. My nurse explained that since she'd just seen me walk a quarter mile that I basically was ripped underneath all of this fat." - Arnold Boogienigger

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 53 guests